Raf

We're distinguishing in this thread between "actual errors" and "doctrinal differences" (or, as I've called them previously, errors of interpretation). I think I understand what Wierwille was saying when he talked about Christ as being "absent." The Apostle Paul even said that while we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord. How could we be absent from him if he is not absent from us? How are we to handle this statement?

Point is, you may feel it's error, and I may feel it's error, but it's a stretch to call it "actual error" as defined in this thread.

An actual error would be something like "Wierwille said Moses brought nine of each kind of animal on the ark, including great whales and fish."

A correction to something I said earlier:

In the extended DVD edition, Gandalf does not reveal the origin of Gollum. He DOES say that Gollum used to be called Smeagol, but he reveals nothing substantive about Smeagol.

This is in the scene where they're resting in Moria.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheEnd:

I found some more info on ekklesia. It looks like it can be included as an actual error after all. It's pretty good but also pretty long and complicated. I'm trying to trim it down and summarize it.

---

Have at it.

Here's the basis of my question: What is the difference in meaning between "called out" and the actual definition of "ekklesia." I thought Wierwille's definition in the Green Book was pretty much the same as the article Plots quoted. So if you asked me to distinguish between Wierwille's meaning and the "true" meaning, in my own words, I couldn't do it. So what am I missing? Home that helps.

*****

Steve,

I think you can handle your observation the same way I handled the Kingdom of God/Heaven observation in my original post:

In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the Gentiles in Romans 11:13 are unbelievers, not members of hte church of God.

In truth, the Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are Christian believers. Paul never speaks of the Church of God as distinct from Jews and Gentiles. He speaks of the Church of God as COMPOSED OF Jews and Gentiles. Some may consider this an error of interpretation, but the evidence for it is so clear, it belongs in the actual error category.

How's that?

*****

Simon,

In PFAL, Wierwille writes that Eve made a mistake by considering the question that the devil had propounded (p. 254).

In truth, "considering" is not a mistake. One MUST, logically, consider something before rejecting it. We do not know whether something is in keeping with God's Word unless we consider it. If God says "Do not eat peanut butter," and someone comes along and says "God didn't say you couldn't have peanut butter and jelly," you need to consider that before rejecting it. Granted, that consideration may be brief. But consideration alone is not a mistake.

Well done.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 07, 2003 at 6:42.]

Mike,

You've made it clear that you will not entertain any point of view that leads you away from your idolatrous course. That's fine with me. I am not going to entertain any point of view that leads me toward your idolatrous course. So, we're at an impasse. Keep the case closed. No amount of phone calls will change that.

And "aloof?" Please, at least choose a word that reflects my thinking. Insistent. Adamant. Unwilling to bow before Baal. But aloof? Really, you can do better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by E. W. Bullinger:

It is better to be brief than tedious.

Shakespear Richard III, act i, sc 4

---

Ethelbert,

I apologize for the length of my post. My post would have been MUCH shorter if not for the fact that I deliberately quote that which I am responding to (sorry to my grammar teacher for that last sentence).

Mike,

You worry me. You really do. Seek help.

Mighty convenient, leaving without addressing a single error in your God-breathed class.

quote:

---

You can turn down the offer like the upper leadership did if you want, but MY response to this deplorable situation is "Here am I, send me, Daddy. I'll give it a try if no one else will."

---

"If no one else will."

There's a safe bet.

Waaaaah Waah waaaaah waaaaaaaaah.

Sorry for whining.

Mike, you're delusional.

Wierwille did not tell us to read the Epistles every day for three months. He told us to read The Word. And the thought that he would want us to abandon the King James in its entirety, focusing only on the verses he quotes in the collaterals, runs counter to the very content of those collaterals.

I'm going to ask at this time that you do not call me. Your assertion that we would save time in a phone conversation misses the point that you are making absurd claims in a public setting, and that those claims must be addresses publicly.

You say you do not seek to change my mind. I call that a lie. What is it you seek, if not to persuade us all to your point of view? If you do not seek to change our minds, then you are failing in your missionary task.

No, Mike, this conversation, if it continues at all, stays public. I will not be drawn into an endless telephone conversation in order to have you skillfully avoid answering the points we're all raising here. No. Save your quarter. Do not call.

I reject your idolatry, Mike. I will not be persuaded otherwise, not by you, not by the false god you worship. I do not need 27 years to bow down to your idol. You have disgraced your teacher, and become a caricature of those who loved him. By recognizing his faults without rejecting everything he taught, I submit that I have far more respect for the legacy of Victor Paul Wierwille than you do.

I continue to pray for you.

Okay, two things.

One: Steve, on the one hand, I think you've pointed to some actual errors. On the other hand, you need to articulate them a bit more succinctly. :)--> If I have more time, I'll try to sum up your paragraphs into something that's a bit more self-evident. If you'd like to do it first, feel free.

Second: Come on, people, don't make me play threadcop! The issue of whether we should pay for the class or not is SO not the topic.

Neither is the issue of whether we were "forced" to take it. I think we can all agree that there was intense peer pressure to take the class, and that the spiritual nature of our participation made taking the class more compelling than other endeavors of life. But no one got strapped to a chair. Either way, it's not an actual error in PFAL, so can we get back to it? Please? Thanks.

Mike,

I reject any quotations of Scripture from you: they lack authority in your eyes, and therefore cannot be used by you to prove your point.

Further, please stop trying to convince me. I've made up my mind and unless you are going to be meek to my position, I need to save my energy for people who will be meek to it. It's one thing if you want to listen, but if you're going to try to convince ME to change MY mind, you've got another thing coming.

This is really long, but it mostly addresses specific things Mike wrote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike…

Here is one observation that may help sooner or later, although it’s a bit remote at the present due to more data needed. Notice in Dr’s Last/Lost Teaching that in the list (which occurs twice) of the three things he tells his top leaders (and us) to master are the Foundational Class and the Intermediate Class, but a conspicuous absence of the Advanced Class. Why?

---

I was under the impression from your earlier posts that Wierwille had finished his work and was ready to die. Yet now you make it clear that there was a major portion of his work that was left undone. So, which is it?

quote:

---

It’s also the case that in the tape/print record that was available at the time of the teaching, there was nothing available for the AC except for a syllabus. The AC is again in a different category, compared to the other two classes.

---

Actually, not much of the Intermediate class exists in written form, at least not written by Victor Paul Wierwille.

quote:

---

The Intermediate and Foundational were combined into one class a few times, and then separated again over several decades. But even when the were separate, the intermediate had a few collateral teachings included in the syllabus.

---

Most of which was written by other people, no?

quote:

---

My main point here is that the Advanced Class seems to not be in the same category as the FC and the IC, and several pieces of evidence form that impression.

---

Are you now saying the Intermediate Class was God-breathed? I’m lost. They ditched Wierwille’s Intermediate Class for Earl Burton’s. Why would Wierwille permit the God-breathed Word to be replaced with a cheap carbon copy?

quote:

---

I have a large file on a seemingly unrelated subject that also fits in here,

---

Somehow, that does not surprise me.

quote:

---

In a nutshell I think it’s a big mistake to place things Dr said off tape, and especially in private as doctrinal in any way.

---

You’re on the right track. Now, take it to the next step…

quote:

---

I have slowly formed a rating system even for tapes, where widely distributed SNS tapes of Dr’s are kinda high, while the Corps tapes and “in-house” tapes gravitate lower in priority.

---

Holy cow.

quote:

---

At the top of the list are the written materials that Dr identifies in his last teaching. He often stressed that the highest priority, ultimate standard is “It Is Written.” This is the motto of the Way Corps, isn’t it? It is well know that Dr put much more time into getting the print record as perfect as possible, and he placed a bit lower priority on tape.

---

As others have eloquently noted, Wierwille was thinking of THE BIBLE, not his own writings, when he quoted “It Is Written” and made it the motto of his Way Corps. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest that he was thinking of his own writings.

quote:

---

He went over the print record many, many times.

---

Proof positive that he did not consider it “God-breathed,” as he felt comfortable adding words, subtracting words and changing words.

quote:

---

He hardly EVER edited tapes of teachings.

---

Well, DUHHHH! What’s he supposed to do, jump in a time machine and re-teach the Rock of Ages until he gets it right?

quote:

---

Almost the entire film class was done with one take, and hardly any editing. The PFAL book changed quite a few things that are on the film, and was the result of much thought and discussion.

---

It was the result of much thought and discussion. It was not a result of God breathing. It was a result of MAN’s thought and MAN’s discussion. God doesn’t give revelation by committee.

quote:

---

I’m just extremely picky as to what I’m meek to learn from. I decided this after much, much thought. Some of it is up in the air, but that doesn’t deter me. I’m having fun, I’m blessed, and it’s has helped me much, so don’t bother me about it.

---

Picky: meaning, of course, you are only meek to learn from the written works of Victor Paul Wierwille. And not even that: for Wierwille’s written words reject your thesis, and your dismissive attitude toward the Bible.

quote:

---

It took Dr 27 years to earn this kind of respect,

---

Really? It took him far less time to “earn” his doctorate.

quote:

---

and I absolutely refuse to take seriously anyone who DEMANDS this kind of respect from me.

---

I see you’re beginning to understand our reaction to you.

quote:

---

I will respect them as fellow human beings, and as equal brothers in Christ today.

---

Do you respect Wierwille as MORE than that?

quote:

---

But if tomorrow I learn of any one of them that he has a HEART to disobey Dr’s final instructions, then that respect rapidly plummets depending on how vehemently they think evil of my father in the Word.

---

I believe your father in the Word was an error-prone, sexual predator who abused his position in the church in order to seduce women. I also think he was a plagiarist who dishonestly took credit for what others wrote. Will you leave me alone now?

Earlier, you wrote that God told the same thing to Wierwille that he told men before him. I would be inclined to accept that if not for the uncontested evidence that Wierwille read and had access to the men’s works BEFORE he wrote his own. Wierwille learned to speak in tongues from Stiles, then suddenly, his book quotes Stiles as though the words are Wierwille’s. That’s plagiarism. Your explanation for it is pure head-in-the-sand denial. Be my guest, but my respect for you rapidly plummets depending on your refusal to see the simple truth in front of you.

quote:

---

Since I have NOT yet mastered what he DID tell me to master, I feel I’m unqualified to sort all this out just now.

---

For once, we agree. Had you mastered what Dr. told you to master, you would be rejecting your theory, just as Wierwille did.

quote:

---

I do not know which things in there are wrong.

---

I’ve got a list.

quote:

---

I mentioned in another post that it is an ominous task to purge ALL that Dr taught me if I were to come to believe he was lying with all his “Thus saith the Lord” claims.

---

AGAIN with the false dichotomy! Mike, it’s not ALL OR NOTHING. Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. That’s the Biblical mandate.

quote:

---

I do allow myself news and entertainment info.

---

Good, my job is safe.

quote:

---

“No man can serve two masters” is part of this carefully chosen policy of mine.

---

I think it was Abigail who nailed you on this one. Your master should be God, in Christ. Not Wierwille. You have chosen the works of a flawed man as your master. That’s idolatry.

quote:

---

I’ve eliminated meek reception of all other voices on the subject of God’s Word.

---

We’ve noticed. I will, henceforth, treat YOUR assessment of God’s Word with the same lack of respect with which you treat mine. Thanks kindly for your declaration.

quote:

---

So surprise, surprise, I don’t hang on every word of the Advanced Class. I have quoted some of it here, but that is only material that is in agreement with the material I’m mastering.... so far.

---

Most of us are taking this approach with EVERYTHING Wierwille said and taught. We’re supposed to be impressed because you’re not bowing before the Advanced Class? Yeah, right, whatever.

quote:

---

One thing for sure I’ve locked onto is I must not think evil of Dr.

---

Must… not… think… evil… of… Dr….

Mike, your foolishness in this statement has already been addressed, so I’m not going to repeat it.

quote:

---

I also know all the twelve apostles died of SOMETHING, as well as all the prophets, and I try to not think evil of them either. Same with GSers, even though THAT’s a challenge at times.

---

WOAH! The apostles NEVER claimed that they could stay alive by their believing, or that they would die only when they stopped believing. No one’s knocking Wierwille for getting cancer. What we’re saying is that he should have come clean and said he was WRONG to say cancer was a devil spirit, and apologize to the people he hurt by implying they were outside of the will of God because of their cancer. It was his HYPOCRISY we are criticizing, not his illness. (I’ll note that, along with Oldies, I never heard Wierwille say this. I’m only reacting to your comparison of Wierwille with the apostles).

And in Mike’s more recent post…

quote:

---

I think you may be mis-applying the first part of that verse. MY OPINION is that your business regarding this matter is to forgive, forget, and get totally healed.

---

Where does God say to forget? Let me tell you something: if you sexually abuse me or someone close to me, I may forgive you, but I don’t think the Bible commands me to forget it. And as long as some Wierwille-worshipping idolater continues to laud him as God’s prophet, and his works as God-breathed, we need people who are willing to stand up and say THE MAN WAS A SEXUAL PREDATOR who ABUSED his position in the Body of Christ to HURT God’s people. How DARE you tell people to forget that? Look, it’s as much a part of his legacy as PFAL. It’s a reminder to us not to worship a man, but you are doing that anyway. What GALL!

Show me where the Bible says to FORGET?

quote:

---

There are many things I have done in my life I’m not proud of, but let me assure you that a skinny science nerd like myself never got “lucky” enough to do the things you find most reprehensible.

---

Have you SEEN Wierwille? It wasn’t his looks. It was his abuse of his position of power. My goodness, after 27 years, you can’t see this?

quote:

---

If I had had those “troops” I too may have invaded Poland once or twice.

---

If you really feel that way, if you honestly think that of yourself, then do me a favor and lose my phone number. I will never pick up, and will never return your call.

quote:

---

I saw ALL my college roommates and most of my friends try, and sometimes succeed, in doing terrible things to women (usually very young and dumb) that sometimes turned my stomach. But then there were also those times that I was green, not with disgust, but with envy.

---

They had NOTHING on Wierwille.

quote:

---

Either a medical condition or a jaded conscience to lying can bring a man to claim he is in that 1% category that’s totally innocent.

---

No one is claiming or requiring innocence. But I expect, no, I DEMAND that my pastors do not abuse their positions to seduce the flock, that they do not practice and excuse rampant adultery. My GOD, Mike, have you abandoned all reason?

quote:

---

The same thing happened to David, NOT for his sexual problem per se, but for murder. He had to suffer with the consequences of his sin for many years, even though he was back in fellowship and writing Psalms from God.

---

Psst. Come here. BULLSH!T. You think David’s sexual sin was not the real issue? Explain Nathan’s story. Nathan does not even MENTION the murder of Uriah! He mentions how someone took another man’s sheep. Nothing in Nathan’s story about killing anything or anyone. Nathan’s story was SPECIFICALLY about David’s adultery, and you come along, what 3,000 years later, and say David was reproved for murder, not for adultery? Fool!

quote:

---

Plus the Father would surely WANT to cover the sins of His adopted son, David. I feel the exact same about my father in the Word. During Dr’s lifetime, God did the same kind of covering, else the collaterals would have never been printed up and so widely distributed.

---

So the fact that the collaterals are published and distributed are proof that God’s hand was on it? Dude, the Satanic Bible has sold more copies than PFAL. That proves NOTHING. And what “widely distributed.” Less than 100,000 people have a complete set. On earth!

quote:

---

And Proverbs would have been LONG gone if we all were really consistent in purging our lives of all male-sin and the products of great male-sinners. How many of Solomon’s wives do you think he mistreated? AT LEAST a couple hundred is my guess from listening to the OT History tapes, and from my participating in the male gender.

---

Mike, you NUT, the Proverbs were written BEFORE that!

quote:

---

If you think you can skip around the collaterals and ask, I think you’re asking for trouble. The devil can counterfeit God’s voice so well that only a master can tell them apart.

---

Meek Master Mike is back.

quote:

---

The only way out of this 2000 year (at least) old vicious cycle is God has step in. That’s what the 1942 promise was and is.

---

A lie is what the 1942 promise was and is.

quote:

---

And that project of fixing His Word that God initiated was basically finished after 40 years of Him working with Dr. This is stated by Dr as his last words to Craig at Craig’s installation, and it’s on the same tape I quoted on the “News Flash!” thread about Craig’s non-spiritual installation.

---

Wierwille said it. That settles it. You believe it.

quote:

---

Another thing the rare “spiritually boosted researcher” needs is the courage to face the fire of tradition and its many, many vehement adherents.

---

Again with the straw man. They don’t agree with you: they must be in favor of tradition. I reject your FALSE, LYING accusation.

quote:

---

Examples: Moses, John the Baptist, Mary. As far as the job of restoring God’s Word (like in Jer.36) it took 2000 years for God to find BOTH a tough ornery contrarian crowd like us to believe, and a tough ornery contrarian like Dr to teach us.

---

That’s rich. Ever hear of Charles Taze Russell? Tough, ornery contrarian, rejected the Trinity and rejected immediate life after death, founded a Christian sect people have actually HEARD of. Your Wierwille is a pathetic WANNABE compared to Charles Taze Russell.

Until now I have accused you of worshipping Wierwille’s writings alone. I now assert that you worship Wierwille as well: not as perfect, but as above and beyond any other Christian. Your idolatry exceeds anything I thought it was.

quote:

---

Oakspear, you and others keep referring to comparing PFAL to the Bible, but you all keep ignoring the major problem that we don’t really HAVE the Bible, only what a very large team of scholars have given us.

---

YOU HYPOCRITE! Wierwille did not treat the Bible with such disrespect as you have! Wierwille said, repeatedly, that the Bible CAN be trusted. His whole claim to understanding the Word came from (supposedly) taking thousands of books to the city dump and going straight to the Bible. YOU reject the Book Wierwille praised. You HYPOCRITE! If Wierwille heard you, his fingers would BLEED from slapping you so repeatedly.

quote:

---

I’ve repeated demonstrated in many posts, the simplest and most complete of which is “Feelings,” that this tradition provided “Bible” is only approximate. Why do you keep shoving this intractable problem under the rug? Is it because it’s difficult to deal with?

---

You’ve finally cracked.

quote:

---

Tell me how you solve this problem so that you can do your error checking in comparing of PFAL to “the Bible.”

---

What was Wierwille’s saying: Chapter and Verse, please? That was HIS saying. HE expected us to take whatever was taught and compare it to THE BIBLE, not his own books. That you can study his works for three decades and come away with such a profound disrespect for God’s Word strikes me as the ultimate paradox. You disgrace the man you worship.

Listen, Meek Master Mike, if Wierwille held the Bible with the same disregard as you, do tell, why did he spend so much time teaching us how to read it?

quote:

---

You’re not really using the Bible but and approximation of the Bible, and God did better than a mere approximation like that in what He taught Dr and Dr taught us.

---

Given a choice between never having PFAL again, and never having the Bible again, I’d lose PFAL in a heartbeat. Wanna know something scary? So would Wierwille.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 06, 2003 at 12:21.]

Shall I?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheEnd:

OK, Israel is called an ekklesia in the septuagent. Go figure.

This is getting to the point that it violates Rafael's rules for this thread, so I'll stop here.

---

No it's not. Carry on.

Goey, you are correct.

Mike,

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike.

Mike.

Mike? Mike!

Oh Mike.

Oooh, a waytoogoodone from The End. Well done. Well done.

Karl,

You need to bear in mind the purpose of this thread:

There's someone going around promoting hte belief that PFAL is "God-breathed," on par with scripture, no contradictions, etc. In fact, all of Wierwille's writings that we have fall under that category, in this person's eyes.

Then there's another person who FOOLISHLY stated that, to paraphrase, "people who say there are documentable errors in PFAL are like deaf people proving that music doesn't exist."

So the purpose of this thread is to point to errors that cannot be chalked up to differences in interpretation. Errors so fundamental and blatant that there's no room for argument, as long as both sides are being honest.

2+2=5 is an error, and unless you are burying your head in the sand (or elsewhere), you have to be able to see the mistake.

Four crucified? I think Bullinger built a fairly good case, but to be honest, I stopped CARING about that issue about five or six years ago.

Notice that I stayed away from the meaning of "sabachthani." I thought Vic did a good job of showing the root word there, and I can't simply dismiss it as an actual error (my rules, I make 'em up).

So I heartily encourage you to come up with a list of likely errors, a list of strange doctrines (like when Judas hanged himself. I ripped on that one way back when I was reviewing the Blue Book. Hooooo-weeee that was fun).

Anyway, I would think that such threads would be more at home in the Doctrinal section of the Greasespot Cafe. I think this is a borderline doctrinal thread, but it really is more at home in this "About the Way" forum.

Maybe I'm just being anal.

Hey, Plots, thanks.

I read that earlier, but I have to admit, I fail to see the distinction. Wierwille taught that ekklesia meant "a group of people who have gathered for a specific purpose." I don't see how that's different from what Nida writes above. Please elaborate, if you can.

Meanwhile, here’s two more actual errors from the same page of PFAL (p. 119).

In PFAL, Wierwille writes:

quote:

---

The English words “rightly dividing” are the Greek word orthotomounta.

---

In truth, the word is orthotomeo. The word orthotomounta does not occur in the New Testament.

In PFAL, Wierwille writes:

quote:

---

The first word in II Timothy 2:15 is “Study.” The very first thing a person must do to rightly divide The Word is study. He is not told to study commentaries or secular writers; he must study The Word.

---

In truth, the word “study” in II Timothy 2:15 would more accurately be translated “endeavor.” It does not mean “study” in the way Wierwille uses it. The NIV translates it “do your best.” So does the Contemporary English Version. The New Living Translation renders it, “Work hard.” It does not mean “study.” Wierwille deliberately uses a mistranslated word to prove his point. The point was valid, but the error remains.

quote:

---

Just because something was in the film but not in the book, does not mean he was correcting a mistake.

---

I never meant to imply otherwise. In the case of anablepto/eidon, it was a correction. But that was not intended to be a blanket statement.

As for Abraham, I'm still not with you, George. I think Wierwille was referring to foretelling or forthtelling information from God. I'm sure there were times when Abraham looked up at the sky and said, "looks like rain," and sure enough, it rained. That's not prophecy, not by Wierwille's definition.

HOWEVER! Abraham DID relay God's promise to his servant. In Genesis 24:7, he says that God told him "Unto thy seed will I give this land."

That's foretelling, even by Wierwille's definition. God told Abraham, Abraham told someone else. And it was concerning a future event. So Abraham did foretell.

Wierwille's statement regarding Abraham does not appear to be in the book, as far as I can see. If anyone can correct me, feel free.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

Rafael, thanks for making me laugh. I needed it.

By the way I'm ringing your phone right now. It's just ringing.

---

Because I'm on the Internet. Call later.

double post

Back to "The Fact."

Earlier in this discussion, I asked Mike to address the problem of Wierwille's contradiction with regard to the term "all without distinction." To briefly summarize:

In PFAL, p. 65, Wierwille writes "all WITHOUT distinction means everyone in a certain designated class or group."

However, in Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 94, he writes, "all WITH distinction means that there are no exceptions within a certain group."

In other words "all WITHOUT distinction" and "all WITH distinction" mean exactly the same thing. I call this a contradiction, while Mike thinks it's only an apparent contradiction. Mike's reply was that the words "the fact" on p. 94 of JCNG help establish that we're dealing with a senses observation.

Mike, I challenge you to expand on this utterly meaningless distraction to make it relevant to your point. The term "the fact" is dealing with the second half of John 1:3, and by that time Wierwille is discussing "all without exception" again. It has NOTHING to do with "all with distinction," and thus has nothing to do with the substance of this contradiction.

On the basis of this ONE CONTRADICTION alone, by your standard, you must conclude that either JCNG or PFAL is NOT God-breathed. So, which is it?

must....resist...posting...

Shouldn't we all be in church?

Oh for Vic's sake.

Permission granted. There, happy now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

Abigail et all. Look at what Gamaliel said in Acts.

---

I've been waiting a LONG time for this...

GAMALIEL WAS WRONG!!!!

Think about it: according to his statement, the only doctrines and movements that survive are those that have God's blessing on them. All others will come to nought.

Trinitarianism has endured through the centuries. By Gamaliel's standard, it must be of God.

Islam has survived for centuries. By Gamaliel's standard, it must be of God.

Gamaliel's statement is quoted supportively by far too many Christians. It's a great quote, but ultimately, it proves nothing. The endurance of a viewpoint is not proof of its divine authority.

P.S. Ditto to what Oakspear said above. That post to mj WAS creepy.

If I may be so bold, OCD, please calm down. If MJ wants to complain to Paw, she should do so. Let "the proper authorities" handle it.